Psych 3100 1st EditionExam # 2 Study Guide Lectures: 11 - 20Chapter 5- Consulting with Criminal Courts- Criminal Competencieso Forensic mental health assessments- determines if criminals competent enough to pleadguilty, serve as their own defense, etc.  Competency evaluations- evaluations of the person’s CURRENT mental state. Can be made at any stage of a trial.- These are the most common kind of evaluations- If there’s any question as to whether the defendant can understand what the lawyer is saying, assist the lawyer, etc., it would not be fair to try them - On average, 4 out of 5 people who are evaluated for competency are found competent. However, most people don’t even need to be evaluated. Sanity evaluations- making an evaluations about a person’s sanity- These are less common - Sanity is about an individual’s state of mind at the time of the crime, which may or may not be their current mental state  Presentencing evaluations- similar to a risk assessment; predict dangerousness so that judge can make a decision about granting bail What is the preferred term for competency evaluations?Adjudicative competence is the preferred tem, because it encompasses all kinds of evaluations that may be made. Richard Bonnie says that you also need to consider decisional competency (because you may need to conduct further evaluations).What must competency to stand trial include? What is the Dusky standard for competency? Competency standard must include the competency to proceed and decisional competency. The Dusky standard says that the defendant must- understand what is happening- be able to assist attorney in defenseYou are deemed competent if you have sufficient ability to consult with you lawyer and a reasonable understanding of the proceedings. This standard is based on the case of Milton Dusky, who had schizophrenia and kidnapped a 15 year old girl. He was found guilty, and later appealed. There was evidence that he was not competent at the time of his trial. Describe the case of Indiana vs. EdwardsThe U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the judge could insist that the defendant be represented by a lawyer and could not defend themselves, even if they had been found competent earlier. Now, competency to stand trial was separated from competency to represent yourself. It used to be that the defendant has to be able to show clear and convincing proof of their incompetence. Now defendants only have to show bya preponderance of the evidence that they were competent (a little bit more than half)- There is a bias toward the idea that you are presumed to be competent until you can prove incompetence - Psychologists makes a full report, but does not make a final decision, because competence is a legal term, not a psychological one.Evaluating adjudicative competence:- Examination process has varied widely, no standard- Self-report of background and legal knowledge screen out competent defendants- Multiple measures important (psychologists know the difference between the stereotypes foundon the internet and the subtle implications of incompetency) o Restoration to Competence What is the likelihood that an individual will be restored to competency?- If unlikely  drop the criminal charges and initiate involuntary civil commitment o It is not ethical to hold somebody in an institution that has not been found guiltyo What happens next is a separate issue Jackson vs. Indiana (1972)- US Supreme Court ruling that you can’t hold a person indefinitely if it is determined that their competency cannot be restored in the near future o You can hold them for however much time it takes to make the decision about whether restoration to competence is possible inthe foreseeable future Medication and Restoration to Competence- Drugs are the most common method of restorationo Side effects o Medication noncompliance Sell vs. U.S., 2003- Thomas Sell had a history of mental illness and he was charged with fraud. He was found incompetent to stand trial and the court decided that an individual could be forced to take their medication for the purpose of restoring competency.  Eugene Russell Weston- Known as the “Capitol Shooter” (in 1998 he entered the Capitol and shot and killed two officers)- Violent offender; suffers from mental disorders, and has been taking antipsychotic medications- The lower court also ruled that he could be involuntarily medicated- He has never been brought to trial; he has been held for 13 years in a mental institution and they have never been able to restore competency (despite the fact that it has been found unconstitutional to hold someone indefinitely)- Insanityo Legal standard- absence of guilty mind due to mental disorder  a person may be insane yet competent to stand trial, as there is a difference between competency and sanity- competency is the mental state at the time of the criminal justice proceedings- sanity is the mental state at the time of the crime- Insanity defense is not used very frequently; only 1% enter a plea of insanity o Only successful in 25% of those caseso Daniel M’Naghten (1843) high profile case in England, attempted to shoot prime minister Missed and killed press secretary High profile case Suffering from delusions of persecution (biological)  After this case, it was made more difficult to plead insanity M’Naghten Rules- Right vs. Wrong Test: if person can distinguish between right and wrong… very strict- Under the M’Naghten rule, almost nobody qualifies for the insanity plea, even people who are severely mentally ill- Some people have an irresistible impulse to commit a crime due to a mental disorder Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984- strict interpretation of insanity; people have to be unable to know the difference between right and wrongo Juries often decide cases on moral grounds (can ignore the letter of the law/how insanityplea is worded if they deem it fit)o Defendants can plead guilty but mentally ill, in which case they would need to be institutionalized before being sent to jail R-CRAS (Rodgers-Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scale) is used to assess sanity- The presence of a mental disorder is not enough to plea insanity o They have to prove that due to the mental disorder, the person was unable to understand what they were doing was wrong/resist the urge to act outo Different from competency o Person may be insane but